amitjoey
03-18 04:24 PM
Hello
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
My I140 has been pending for a long time too, without any reason. So finally after many service requests, I have talked to one of the senators of my state. I have explained the situation, ofcourse used the opportunity to highlight IV and EB immigrants problems and then talked about my specific case. There is a routine paperwork that my senators office has that they use to get authorisation from individuals like us to pursue the case with the USCIS. I have filled that paperwork and the request to look into my case. I have a strong notion that it is going to work. The senators office had looked into an earlier case for me with success where I needed to obtain a pending AP in a hurry. I have my own labor (NO Substitute)
I have no idea what the deal is with the H1- Why it was denied.
I suggest you talk to your senator's office.
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
My I140 has been pending for a long time too, without any reason. So finally after many service requests, I have talked to one of the senators of my state. I have explained the situation, ofcourse used the opportunity to highlight IV and EB immigrants problems and then talked about my specific case. There is a routine paperwork that my senators office has that they use to get authorisation from individuals like us to pursue the case with the USCIS. I have filled that paperwork and the request to look into my case. I have a strong notion that it is going to work. The senators office had looked into an earlier case for me with success where I needed to obtain a pending AP in a hurry. I have my own labor (NO Substitute)
I have no idea what the deal is with the H1- Why it was denied.
I suggest you talk to your senator's office.
wallpaper Casa em Condomínio -
eager_immi
05-30 01:42 PM
GC is not for you to apply it is based on the employer. Many employers wait to file in the 5th year so you do not leave the company. Also every time your job changes within the company (which is also not in your hand) your employer will re-file labor. So you could have been here like me for 9 years with a priority date on May 2005 and bc of change in job position it will become Dec 2007 and never get your green card.
I understand if someone was stuck in BEC, we all got s****ed with that.
But why given that the H1B is only intended to be for a maximum of 6 years would anyone leave it until the last year to apply.
PERM has been around for a while now, and anyone approaching 6 years should have already filed PERM or be ready to leave after year 6.
I understand if someone was stuck in BEC, we all got s****ed with that.
But why given that the H1B is only intended to be for a maximum of 6 years would anyone leave it until the last year to apply.
PERM has been around for a while now, and anyone approaching 6 years should have already filed PERM or be ready to leave after year 6.
fide_champ
06-25 02:42 PM
ask the lawyer what he was thinking
It looks like the lawyer did not find any information that they should not send it before July 1st.
It looks like the lawyer did not find any information that they should not send it before July 1st.
2011 fachadas, fachadas casas
pappu
06-15 09:19 AM
In the past few years, our members have seen their immigration petitions, at times, processed improperly or get denied for the wrong reasons. At Immigration Voice members have contacted us with various issues and we keep getting these requests even now.
We have noticed that some of these processing issues are repetitive and there seems to be a pattern to their occuring.
The most common issue we see all the time is when applicants ports his/her job through AC21 portability - an i 485 employment based petition getting denied immediately after employer revokes i 140. i 485 employment based petition must not be denied immediately if i 140 revoke happens after 180 days of filing i 485. This issue is very common and keeps happening and the only way this can now be resolved as of today is by filing for a Motion to Reopen.
Other issues we have noticed are
- USCIS denies an i 485 petition because beneficiary did not answer a request for evidence - whereas in reality the beneficiary never received the RFE
- 485 was filed in Aug 2007, when the priority dates were indeed current (USCIS issued a memo explicitly stating this), but the adjudicating officer sometimes issues a denial stating that the dates were not current
and other similar issues.
In each of these cases, the USCIS should give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and issue a Request for Evidence (RFE), or maybe a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), but never a straight denial.
As most of our members know, Immigration Voice has been helping members (especially donor members) in getting their 485 denials reversed successfully. This is being achieved by helping affected members follow up on their Motion To Reconsider (MTR) applications with their representatives of Congress, the Ombudsman, and at times directly with the USCIS.
In the long drawn process especially the i 485 application can get reviewed more than a handful of times - during filing, during pre-adjudication, during transfers between service centers (if applicable), during interviews (if applicable), during adjudication, and quite possibly reviewed by a different officer each time
Difficulties faced by applicants who get wrongful 485 denials:
- When an AOS applicant gets their 485 denied, they are faced with a barrage of stressful questions and issues,
- Applicants have 30 days to file an MTR, which can be an expensive affair - filing fees + attorney fees
- Applicants using their EAD cards to work, may have to suspend employment and go on leave without pay until their MTR is accepted and the 485 reopened. Undue delays during this phase can put their jobs at risk.
- Travel becomes an issue, since there is a question of the Advance Parole travel document becoming invalid if the 485 was denied
- Pending EAD/AP renewal applications could be jeopardized due to the denial of the 485 which was the basis for those applications
- If an applicant is overseas when the 485 is denied, they may quite possibly have trouble getting back into the country
- Local law enforcement, department of Motor vehicles, and other government agencies may not recognize the applicant's legal status in the country for the period during which the 485 is denied, which has its own set of hassles
The list could go on, but you get the gist, a 485 denial is not a pretty situation, until it gets resolved.
That being said, IV would like to work with the USCIS in taking measures to correct their processing procedures and not repeating the same errors again and again, thus saving the applicants from having to go through all the trouble, and the USCIS from the additional burden of having to review even more applications.
Our intention is not to blame, point fingers, or take up a fight with anyone. We recognize that this might be a training issue, or an oversight on the agency's part, and would like to work with them to resolve this.
The first step towards this initiative is to collect information on such denials that may have happened in the past 12 -16 months (since Jan 2008). IV is looking to get in touch with members that have had issues due to service errors and successfully resolved, and even the ones that are currently going through this.
We do understand that the first thought that might come to your mind is whether you could face any repercussions for 'taking action against a government agency'. Please realize that you are not taking any action against anyone, you are in fact helping IV help the USCIS streamline and improve its processes, which any agency would be very welcoming of.
We request our members who have faced such issues or are facing such issues to
- post a brief of their issue on this thread - such a post may not need to have personal information but a description of the issue and if it was resolved what were the steps taken (optional)
and
- Email a detailed issue description with dates, chronology of events and other information and hurdles you faced with your name and a contact number to info@immigrationvoice.org with a subject line "USCIS service error" (mandatory)
Please note that ONLY real stories from non anonymous members are needed. Please do not send bogus stories anonymously
At a later stage IV may request few members to provide their case information along with privacy consent after its discussions with appropriate authorities.
By doing so, you will be first and foremost, helping yourselves (we have had more than one member contact us, where the 485 was wrongfully denied on more than one occasion - so a successful MTR is not necessarily a sign that there won't be any more denials until the 485 gets approved), and helping other fellow applicants from having to deal with this very stressful and unnecessary situation.
We would like to encourage members to come forward and help us with this initiative, and also spread the word around. Helping is as easy as sending IV an email and optionally sharing your story on the forum.
With the priority dates being the way they are, and the heavy pre-adjudication activity that is said to be happening, we have an aggressive time line for this initiative, and would like to collect all information by June 30th, 2009, at the latest.
Thank you,
Immigration Voice
Chanduv23 and other volunteer members have formed a team for this effort under IV's guidance to help resolve common problems people face with USCIS errors. We have so many threads on RFEs and denials etc. Lot of people contact IV when they need help and they have nowhere to go. Just because someone does not have an RFE or Denial in error does nor mean it will not happen in future. People get panicked and seek frantic help from IV when they get into such situations. We wish to help solve this issue through this action item. If you need more information or wish to speak with someone please message chanduv23/ santb1975/mpadapa/snathan/axp817
If anyone wants to work on any other ideas and efforts, they can also form a team and contact us. We will guide you. Do not sit, wait and critique. Join hands with others and tell us your ideas and discuss them with us. Send us an email and we will talk about it. If the idea can be feasible we will certainly make that an action item.
We have noticed that some of these processing issues are repetitive and there seems to be a pattern to their occuring.
The most common issue we see all the time is when applicants ports his/her job through AC21 portability - an i 485 employment based petition getting denied immediately after employer revokes i 140. i 485 employment based petition must not be denied immediately if i 140 revoke happens after 180 days of filing i 485. This issue is very common and keeps happening and the only way this can now be resolved as of today is by filing for a Motion to Reopen.
Other issues we have noticed are
- USCIS denies an i 485 petition because beneficiary did not answer a request for evidence - whereas in reality the beneficiary never received the RFE
- 485 was filed in Aug 2007, when the priority dates were indeed current (USCIS issued a memo explicitly stating this), but the adjudicating officer sometimes issues a denial stating that the dates were not current
and other similar issues.
In each of these cases, the USCIS should give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and issue a Request for Evidence (RFE), or maybe a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), but never a straight denial.
As most of our members know, Immigration Voice has been helping members (especially donor members) in getting their 485 denials reversed successfully. This is being achieved by helping affected members follow up on their Motion To Reconsider (MTR) applications with their representatives of Congress, the Ombudsman, and at times directly with the USCIS.
In the long drawn process especially the i 485 application can get reviewed more than a handful of times - during filing, during pre-adjudication, during transfers between service centers (if applicable), during interviews (if applicable), during adjudication, and quite possibly reviewed by a different officer each time
Difficulties faced by applicants who get wrongful 485 denials:
- When an AOS applicant gets their 485 denied, they are faced with a barrage of stressful questions and issues,
- Applicants have 30 days to file an MTR, which can be an expensive affair - filing fees + attorney fees
- Applicants using their EAD cards to work, may have to suspend employment and go on leave without pay until their MTR is accepted and the 485 reopened. Undue delays during this phase can put their jobs at risk.
- Travel becomes an issue, since there is a question of the Advance Parole travel document becoming invalid if the 485 was denied
- Pending EAD/AP renewal applications could be jeopardized due to the denial of the 485 which was the basis for those applications
- If an applicant is overseas when the 485 is denied, they may quite possibly have trouble getting back into the country
- Local law enforcement, department of Motor vehicles, and other government agencies may not recognize the applicant's legal status in the country for the period during which the 485 is denied, which has its own set of hassles
The list could go on, but you get the gist, a 485 denial is not a pretty situation, until it gets resolved.
That being said, IV would like to work with the USCIS in taking measures to correct their processing procedures and not repeating the same errors again and again, thus saving the applicants from having to go through all the trouble, and the USCIS from the additional burden of having to review even more applications.
Our intention is not to blame, point fingers, or take up a fight with anyone. We recognize that this might be a training issue, or an oversight on the agency's part, and would like to work with them to resolve this.
The first step towards this initiative is to collect information on such denials that may have happened in the past 12 -16 months (since Jan 2008). IV is looking to get in touch with members that have had issues due to service errors and successfully resolved, and even the ones that are currently going through this.
We do understand that the first thought that might come to your mind is whether you could face any repercussions for 'taking action against a government agency'. Please realize that you are not taking any action against anyone, you are in fact helping IV help the USCIS streamline and improve its processes, which any agency would be very welcoming of.
We request our members who have faced such issues or are facing such issues to
- post a brief of their issue on this thread - such a post may not need to have personal information but a description of the issue and if it was resolved what were the steps taken (optional)
and
- Email a detailed issue description with dates, chronology of events and other information and hurdles you faced with your name and a contact number to info@immigrationvoice.org with a subject line "USCIS service error" (mandatory)
Please note that ONLY real stories from non anonymous members are needed. Please do not send bogus stories anonymously
At a later stage IV may request few members to provide their case information along with privacy consent after its discussions with appropriate authorities.
By doing so, you will be first and foremost, helping yourselves (we have had more than one member contact us, where the 485 was wrongfully denied on more than one occasion - so a successful MTR is not necessarily a sign that there won't be any more denials until the 485 gets approved), and helping other fellow applicants from having to deal with this very stressful and unnecessary situation.
We would like to encourage members to come forward and help us with this initiative, and also spread the word around. Helping is as easy as sending IV an email and optionally sharing your story on the forum.
With the priority dates being the way they are, and the heavy pre-adjudication activity that is said to be happening, we have an aggressive time line for this initiative, and would like to collect all information by June 30th, 2009, at the latest.
Thank you,
Immigration Voice
Chanduv23 and other volunteer members have formed a team for this effort under IV's guidance to help resolve common problems people face with USCIS errors. We have so many threads on RFEs and denials etc. Lot of people contact IV when they need help and they have nowhere to go. Just because someone does not have an RFE or Denial in error does nor mean it will not happen in future. People get panicked and seek frantic help from IV when they get into such situations. We wish to help solve this issue through this action item. If you need more information or wish to speak with someone please message chanduv23/ santb1975/mpadapa/snathan/axp817
If anyone wants to work on any other ideas and efforts, they can also form a team and contact us. We will guide you. Do not sit, wait and critique. Join hands with others and tell us your ideas and discuss them with us. Send us an email and we will talk about it. If the idea can be feasible we will certainly make that an action item.
more...
chanduv23
06-12 09:32 AM
I went through it. I was fired but made to resign, and this happened in my 6th year H1b. I was given a 2 month severence check but lawyer told me it is not safe to assume that the severence period makes my stay legal. 30 to 60 days is safe period for h1b transfer.
Desi companies come of help in such cases. I found a project within 20 days and got my h1b transferred to a desi company and reapplied for Gc in PERM and also got extensions. Now I am back in track, also got 3 year h1b extension based on approved 140.
This is one big thing people never realise. The more the retrogression, the more are chances for people into falling into these situations.
Layoffs and firings are common and everyone goes through it no matter what great employee u r, u r only an employee and not the boss.
As per my definition layoff, firing, no pay hikes, working long hours, no promotions, non equal treatment among co workers, giving u crappy work, making ur work miserable etc..... everything is the same.
Desi companies come of help in such cases. I found a project within 20 days and got my h1b transferred to a desi company and reapplied for Gc in PERM and also got extensions. Now I am back in track, also got 3 year h1b extension based on approved 140.
This is one big thing people never realise. The more the retrogression, the more are chances for people into falling into these situations.
Layoffs and firings are common and everyone goes through it no matter what great employee u r, u r only an employee and not the boss.
As per my definition layoff, firing, no pay hikes, working long hours, no promotions, non equal treatment among co workers, giving u crappy work, making ur work miserable etc..... everything is the same.
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
needhelp!
08-31 12:32 AM
We just had a laugh discussing this, I hope you do too :)..NO.. but back to my initial question, just for Curiosity's sake
Is it your wishful thinking bloke? if it was possible our chinni bhai would have done that instead of waiting this long...
Is it your wishful thinking bloke? if it was possible our chinni bhai would have done that instead of waiting this long...
2010 fachadas de casas bonitas. casas bonitas de mexico. casas bonitas de mexico.
guyfromsg
07-17 09:50 PM
Hi,
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
Lawyer says that should not be a problem. My 140 is pending in TSC, could that be a reason don't know.
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
Lawyer says that should not be a problem. My 140 is pending in TSC, could that be a reason don't know.
more...
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
hair Modernas fachadas de
ticktoe
09-06 02:06 PM
Doesn't matter. MS+0 works just fine. (My EB-2 was MS+0).
The biggest issue is that just with MS, IS NOT HARD TO REFUTE OTHER RESUMES. EVEN IF SOME ONE WITH A MS+6 MONTHS apply to the ad. Then it will be hard for me to justify. That's what makes me little uncomfortable here.
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
Please do let me know your experience. It will greatly help me.
Thanks
The biggest issue is that just with MS, IS NOT HARD TO REFUTE OTHER RESUMES. EVEN IF SOME ONE WITH A MS+6 MONTHS apply to the ad. Then it will be hard for me to justify. That's what makes me little uncomfortable here.
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
Please do let me know your experience. It will greatly help me.
Thanks
more...
girijas
06-13 04:17 PM
It's suprisingly difficult to get people to make calls - most of them think it is silly or wrong to lobby, when the fact of the matter is that, the louder ones are those who get heard - not necessarily the ones who have a stronger case :(
Anyway, since it has been some time since I made the calls myself, I will go ahead and make the calls again. I guess others who have called before can do the same.
Anyway, since it has been some time since I made the calls myself, I will go ahead and make the calls again. I guess others who have called before can do the same.
hot FACHADA CUBIERTA DE CESPED
webpromo
03-27 12:36 PM
this is not a game , this happened really to me .I am Indian .They did not gave my passport back . They took my passport and send me to Bangalore Airport back .I know they don't have any right to hold any one's property that too a country citizenship passport.I am looking for an answer and advice , not question for a question
more...
house fachadas de casas bonitas. 30 Fachadas de casas modernas
sumansk
07-16 06:45 PM
I dont think murthy is the right place to search for updates..Murthy is lacking far behind others in this times of crisis.I am not sure what are their fees/charges...:p
tattoo COLONIAL Fachadas de casas
GSingh
07-13 10:44 AM
Its a good idea but make sure you guyz are comfortable. It must be hot out there.
more...
pictures FACHADAS DE CASAS BONITAS
newuser
08-17 12:10 PM
For renewal they did not even ask me for any documentation. Renewed online, went to DMV and got it for 4 years.
I agree with ashkam. If you renew online, you can get it for 4 years. But if you go in person to DMV, they will issue based in EAD.
I agree with ashkam. If you renew online, you can get it for 4 years. But if you go in person to DMV, they will issue based in EAD.
dresses fachadas de casas bonitas.
mammoy2k
11-13 05:49 PM
you will need to come back to atleast get AP approvals (AP expires every year), and if you are served a fingerprint notice, then come back for that. If you are going to be definately out for the next few years, another option is to do consular processing; talk to a lawyer it depends a lot on your specific case.
Due to work, I would be in the US at least once every quarter. So I dont think that finger printing or AP renewal is a problem, as long as I can get an address where these notices come.
Thanks for your response.
Due to work, I would be in the US at least once every quarter. So I dont think that finger printing or AP renewal is a problem, as long as I can get an address where these notices come.
Thanks for your response.
more...
makeup fachadas de casas bonitas. casas bonitas en mexico. de
LostInGCProcess
08-30 02:11 PM
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
Found on the net:
The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.
12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.
A complete state-by-state set of regulations regarding telephone call recording may be obtained in the following report published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
Found on the net:
The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.
12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.
A complete state-by-state set of regulations regarding telephone call recording may be obtained in the following report published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
girlfriend fachadas de casas bonitas. casas bonitas fotos. porque
Raju
06-13 09:00 AM
Hi
I have given up hopes of getting an H-1B through the Master's quota. I applied on April 4. So there are no hopes anyway.
Now how can one get an H-1B through a non-profit organization. My understanding of this process is not very clear. I was under the impression (wrong impression!!) that if I can get a job at a Non-Profit place through a consulting company(I am an employee of the consulting company and not the Non-Profit org) and because my workplace is at a non-profit organization, I can get an H-1B that qualifies as one that belongs to the Non-Profit H-1B category.
Please clarify. I am trying to understand this clearly.
Thanks very much
I dont think this will fly. This is a stretch. There is nothing to understand here. Claerly, you are an employee of consulting firm, which is a for profit organisation. Your H-1B is filed by the consulting company and not the non-profit organisation.
I have given up hopes of getting an H-1B through the Master's quota. I applied on April 4. So there are no hopes anyway.
Now how can one get an H-1B through a non-profit organization. My understanding of this process is not very clear. I was under the impression (wrong impression!!) that if I can get a job at a Non-Profit place through a consulting company(I am an employee of the consulting company and not the Non-Profit org) and because my workplace is at a non-profit organization, I can get an H-1B that qualifies as one that belongs to the Non-Profit H-1B category.
Please clarify. I am trying to understand this clearly.
Thanks very much
I dont think this will fly. This is a stretch. There is nothing to understand here. Claerly, you are an employee of consulting firm, which is a for profit organisation. Your H-1B is filed by the consulting company and not the non-profit organisation.
hairstyles fachadas de casas bonitas. casas bonitas de mexico. casas bonitas de mexico.
vnsriv
08-14 04:17 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am assuming the check was given by you. Check the returned check if it has correct dates, amount and duly signed. Also, check if you had sufficient amount in your bank a/c at that time. There's no need to give separate checks for each. The total is correct. Your lawyer did correct step. Did you get any update from USCIS on the new package(call them). All the best. Your wife's case will be 100% accepted.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am assuming the check was given by you. Check the returned check if it has correct dates, amount and duly signed. Also, check if you had sufficient amount in your bank a/c at that time. There's no need to give separate checks for each. The total is correct. Your lawyer did correct step. Did you get any update from USCIS on the new package(call them). All the best. Your wife's case will be 100% accepted.
logiclife
03-26 08:20 PM
Working off the books is illegal ofcourse.
Because firstly, you are breaking the immigration law by working on H4. Also you are breaking the tax laws by working off the books, since you dont pay taxes and the employer doesnt pay the payroll tax. And no one pays the medicare and social security tax that is supposed to be paid.
Working without pay:
A lot of H4s have asked that why cant we work as a volunteer where there is no pay. This might be a grey area and you may want to check with a lawyer before you work on H4 without pay. It could be legal but its really not that black and white.
Because firstly, you are breaking the immigration law by working on H4. Also you are breaking the tax laws by working off the books, since you dont pay taxes and the employer doesnt pay the payroll tax. And no one pays the medicare and social security tax that is supposed to be paid.
Working without pay:
A lot of H4s have asked that why cant we work as a volunteer where there is no pay. This might be a grey area and you may want to check with a lawyer before you work on H4 without pay. It could be legal but its really not that black and white.
dontcareanymore
11-12 05:54 PM
Go for it! She can volunteer (obviously, she cannot get paid for the work she will do). I think it is a great idea to volunteer to establish connections and gain work experience to get ready for a real job.
My wife did the same thing when she was on H-4 and HR had no issues with that.
Cheers!
If you see the regulations, you can't work for free on H4 if that work is generally done for money.
As some one stated, if you can't work on some thing that appears to have replaced an eligible worker.
Say for example you can't run a friends consulting company and say I am not being paid. Or teach in a for profit organization. You can however do some community work.
Some people might have gotten away by doing so , but I don't think that makes it legal or right.
My wife did the same thing when she was on H-4 and HR had no issues with that.
Cheers!
If you see the regulations, you can't work for free on H4 if that work is generally done for money.
As some one stated, if you can't work on some thing that appears to have replaced an eligible worker.
Say for example you can't run a friends consulting company and say I am not being paid. Or teach in a for profit organization. You can however do some community work.
Some people might have gotten away by doing so , but I don't think that makes it legal or right.
No comments:
Post a Comment